LKY replies to AWARE

[Ramseth]

Finally Ho Ching told the old man off and got the eldest grandson registered in American School - Breaking MOE regulation.

Wow, Ho Ching so power! Actually, I didn't know that. So, the CL2 requirement for Singaporean Chinese entering NUS etc. has been lifted?

 

[Annoyed]

Hi Ramseth, Scroobal got to you before I could.

As he said, it didn't come easy for many. I have friends born to parents who spoke English and dialect at home (cf. Tan Cheng Bock, who speaks English and Hokkien, but not Mandarin - at least not fluently). It didn't make sense for them to be told that Mandarin was their "mother tongue" when they were only spoken to in English for as long as their memory served them. And it certainly didn't make sense to be taught Mandarin as though they intuitively knew the language when they clearly didn't. Moreover, it was a joke to hear phrases like "getting in touch with your roots" or "inter-generational communication", because as far as they were concerned, learning how to speak Mandarin fluently wasn't getting them anywhere closer to their grandparents who would babble away in Hokkien/Teochew/Cantonese/Hakka/Any other Southern Dialect but Mandarin. And yes, they struggled through their entire education with that policy.

My own personal experience has been more like yours - generally positive - but I'd attribute that to the fact that I speak primarily Mandarin at home and went to some of the top English schools, than the bilingual education policy itself. Communicating with my folks in one language, and with my peers in another, made sure I really was getting the best of both worlds. It was a luxury, and not one that was afforded to everybody. A lot of people I meet today have fairly weak standards of both English and Mandarin, due to their inability to focus on either. For a country that prides itself on adopting English as the official language when everybody else was going native, I find it rather tragic that so many Singaporeans fail to see the difference between "reply" and "revert", and will not flinch at penning such grammatically-incorrect sentences as, "he approved for the budget to be spent". As for Mandarin, let's just say it's pretty telling when the Chinese papers can conjure up a phrase like ＂面包与牛油的问题＂as a literal translation for "bread and butter issues", when you and I would know it's called ＂民生问题＂. My Chinese friends who were in Singapore over the elections period laughed themselves silly reading the Zaobao.

Having said all these, I protested vigorously when the issue of reducing the weightage of mother tongue was mentioned some two to three years back (can't quite remember the exact dates). And I can say, hand to heart, that if the same issue was to be raised all over again, I'd still do so with an equal amount of vigor. But that's only because I do not deem it fair to penalise students who excel in their mother tongue by lowering the weightage of that subject, NOT because I think the policy has been successful in producing a great number of Singaporeans who can claim to be truly fluent in two languages.

I don't understand why you say the bilingual education has "flunked completely." Bilingual education as foundation has enabled me (and many others I'm sure) to become multilingual. Even for those not so linguistically inclined, everyone P65 can read and write at least two languages. So, what failure is there? I'd say it's the greatest PAP policy of all time. Well of course I'd say that, since I consider myself a beneficiary thereof.

Bro, unlike you, many suffered. Language does not come easy for these people. They paid inordinate amount of time on a subject at the expense of other subjects. There were years in the 80s, you could not enter Uni unless you had a pass in the 2nd language.

Kwa Soon Bee who is old man's brother in law and a Baba had his first son suffering doing the 2nd language. He approached his sister and said that he wanted to send his son overseas. The sister pleaded with him to avoid embarrassing the PM. He relented. When his second son began struggling with Mandarin, he told his sister FO and sent his boy overseas. The son now works in SIA. Not many people can send their kids overseas. Finally Ho Ching told the old man off and got the eldest grandson registered in American School - Breaking MOE regulation.

 

[Ramseth]

Great writeup, Annoyed. Though I support the bilingual policy, I also agree that it shouldn't be compelled upon those who couldn't cope with languages but are good in other subjects.

 

[kingrant]

I like what you said here. I completely agree with you. I even had a long argument with another forummer who was just simply too chauvinistic to concede.

Btw, my gut feel tells me you are probably a mother, so sister may be more apt tho scroobal addresses you as bro.

As he said, it didn't come easy for many. I have friends born to parents who spoke English and dialect at home (cf. Tan Cheng Bock, who speaks English and Hokkien, but not Mandarin - at least not fluently). It didn't make sense for them to be told that Mandarin was their "mother tongue" when they were only spoken to in English for as long as their memory served them. And it certainly didn't make sense to be taught Mandarin as though they intuitively knew the language when they clearly didn't. Moreover, it was a joke to hear phrases like "getting in touch with your roots" or "inter-generational communication", because as far as they were concerned, learning how to speak Mandarin fluently wasn't getting them anywhere closer to their grandparents who would babble away in Hokkien/Teochew/Cantonese/Hakka/Any other Southern Dialect but Mandarin. And yes, they struggled through their entire education with that policy.

 

[Annoyed]

Heh, I'm one of those who refuses to contribute to the state project of raising birthrates, so no... not a mom. But, I believe that complex social issues shouldn't be reduced to a simple dichotomy between mothers who work, and those who don't. Or worse still, between women who choose to be mothers and those who don't. Doing so makes light of the problem, and fools of us all.

Btw, my gut feel tells me you are probably a mother, so sister may be more apt tho scroobal addresses you as bro.

 

[kingrant]

I really meant to say that we shld address you as 'sister'.

Heh, I'm one of those who refuses to contribute to the state project of raising birthrates, so no... not a mom. But, I believe that complex social issues shouldn't be reduced to a simple dichotomy between mothers who work, and those who don't. Or worse still, between women who choose to be mothers and those who don't. Doing so makes light of the problem, and fools of us all.

 

[mojito]

such as lengthening the duration of paternity leave

The next person that pushes some dimwitted agenda is going to get some from me. If the husband is a high flying Fortune 500 executive, he'd be overjoyed at getting a state-mandated vacation to play golf with his buddies, and mothers would be no better off. The same goes for someone less responsible. Have you asked, "Who benefits?" or "Who is worse off?"

Do you not realised the feminists at AWARE are first and foremost pushing for workplace equality, not simply a mutual sharing of childrearing duties? I think you need to examine the actions of AWARE to realise that they have consistently pushed for workplace equality, and passing the buck to men to take care of children isn't going to make anyone happier, especially the employer. For a political aspirant, you ought to be more aware (pun unintended) of the motivations of these interest groups.

Tighten employment and immigration laws, make it difficult to hire and fire. That way women who choose to have children are not discriminated by the employer. If the state needs to offer an incentive to compensate employers, it's time to start working the sums.

 

[Annoyed]

And I really meant to say that I may have come out a wee bit too strongly on the motherhood bit in my initial posts due to personal beliefs - that's all. Anyway, thanks for the good discussion thus far. Its been quite a pleasure.

I really meant to say that we shld address you as 'sister'.

 

[kingrant]

My pleasure too! hope to see more of yr posts!

And I really meant to say that I may have come out a wee bit too strongly on the motherhood bit in my initial posts due to personal beliefs - that's all. Anyway, thanks for the good discussion thus far. Its been quite a pleasure.

 

[Annoyed]

This is precisely the sort of sexist attitude I was referring to. The mere suggestion of lengthening paternity leave is instantly termed "dimwitted". That, coupled with a threat to "get some from me", along with the knee-jerk assumption that it's always the husband that holds a high-flying post and not the wife. If I may remind you that irresponsibility can cut both ways. There's no stopping an irresponsible mother from using a state-sanctioned holiday to go on long shopping trips, while leaving the baby in the care of in-laws and/or maids. Or horror of horrors, her husband!

Workplace inequality and the expectation that only women should perform child-rearing roles are BOTH manifestations of sexism, which serve to reinforce each other. Organizations are naturally disincentivized to expend resources on developing female staff, based on the assumption that most of them will eventually fall out with marriage and childbirth. There can be no two ways about it, can there? After all, we know that women - since the beginning of time - are supposed to be the sole caregivers to their children. Which, I suppose, is why any suggestion to involve the father is automatically termed "passing the buck"; an act that will, at the same time, displease any employer (presumably also male).

Just so you know, I'm no political aspirant. But I am very cognizant of AWARE's agenda, and am not in the least surprised that they would want to push such issues in tandem. What surprises me is why you think I would require a reminder as to their motives.

The next person that pushes some dimwitted agenda is going to get some from me. If the husband is a high flying Fortune 500 executive, he'd be overjoyed at getting a state-mandated vacation to play golf with his buddies, and mothers would be no better off. The same goes for someone less responsible. Have you asked, "Who benefits?" or "Who is worse off?"

Do you not realised the feminists at AWARE are first and foremost pushing for workplace equality, not simply a mutual sharing of childrearing duties? I think you need to examine the actions of AWARE to realise that they have consistently pushed for workplace equality, and passing the buck to men to take care of children isn't going to make anyone happier, especially the employer. For a political aspirant, you ought to be more aware (pun unintended) of the motivations of these interest groups.

Tighten employment and immigration laws, make it difficult to hire and fire. That way women who choose to have children are not discriminated by the employer. If the state needs to offer an incentive to compensate employers, it's time to start working the sums.

 

[red amoeba]

perhaps this is the paradox that is gripping the government:
push for gender equality, greater empowerment to women leading to falling birth rates.

nothing right or wrong, just that it is the inevitable part of social progression.

World Bank report finds that better opportunities for women increase productivity.

<tbody>
[TD="class: articleTitle"]World Bank: Gender equality boosts economy[/TD]

[TD="class: Tmp_hSpace10"][/TD]

</tbody>

Gender equality is shrewd economics as well as a human right, the World Bank has said in a report that showed countries with better opportunities for women and girls can boost productivity and development.
The most glaring disparity is the rate at which girls and women die relative to men in developing countries, according to The World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development.
"Blocking women and girls from getting the skills and earnings to succeed in a globalised world is not only wrong, but also economically harmful," said Justin Yifu Lin, World Bank chief economist.
"Sharing the fruits of growth and globalisation equally between men and women is essential to meeting key development goals."
Monday's report cited the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation's estimates that equal access to resources for female farmers could increase agricultural output in poorer countries by up to four per cent.
It also said eliminating barriers preventing women working in certain occupations would cut the productivity gap between male and female workers by a third to a half, and increase output per worker by three to 25 per cent in some countries.
"We need to achieve gender equality," said World Bank President Robert Zoellick.
Zoellick said that over the past five years, the bank has provided funds to support girls' education, women's health, and women's access to credit, land, agricultural services, jobs and infrastructure.
"This has been important work, but it has not been enough or central enough to what we do," he said.
"Going forward, the World Bank Group will mainstream our gender work and find other ways to move the agenda forward to capture the full potential of half the world's population."
Significant gains in gender equality have been made in recent years.

Women now represent 40 per cent of the global labour force, 43 per cent of the agricultural labour force, and more than half of university students, according to the report.
Over half a billion women have joined the workforce in the last 30 years, it added.

 

[myfoot123]

Oh ya, gave all the woman the same family treatment like his family and I am sure all Singaporeans women would prefer to stay at home and look after their husband and children.

LKY has servants, his wife has few companies with employees. Staying at home to look after kids? of course, so much flexibility and istana is a good playground to nurture your children.

 

[mojito]

This is precisely the sort of sexist attitude I was referring to. The mere suggestion of lengthening paternity leave is instantly termed "dimwitted". That, coupled with a threat to "get some from me", along with the knee-jerk assumption that it's always the husband that holds a high-flying post and not the wife. If I may remind you that irresponsibility can cut both ways. There's no stopping an irresponsible mother from using a state-sanctioned holiday to go on long shopping trips, while leaving the baby in the care of in-laws and/or maids. Or horror of horrors, her husband!

Workplace inequality and the expectation that only women should perform child-rearing roles are BOTH manifestations of sexism, which serve to reinforce each other. Organizations are naturally disincentivized to expend resources on developing female staff, based on the assumption that most of them will eventually fall out with marriage and childbirth. There can be no two ways about it, can there? After all, we know that women - since the beginning of time - are supposed to be the sole caregivers to their children. Which, I suppose, is why any suggestion to involve the father is automatically termed "passing the buck"; an act that will, at the same time, displease any employer (presumably also male).

Just so you know, I'm no political aspirant. But I am very cognizant of AWARE's agenda, and am not in the least surprised that they would want to push such issues in tandem. What surprises me is why you think I would require a reminder as to their motives.

AHA! That's precisely the kind of defensive attitude one expects from feminists who feel victimized. Longer paternity leave will not solve the issue of workplace discrimination. In fact, it passes the buck to men who may in fact be the sole breadwinner in the family. Do you think a sole breadwinner needs those few weeks of leave to take care of kids while job competition is rife? Would that not disadvantage married couples in the workplace when they decide to have children?

Ah yes... sexism. It is sexism when females are expected to give birth (!) and take care of children. Then, isn't it sexism that men in this country are required to serve in the military, while women are not? Women I know who are like you will always argue that society is unfair, unjust and mean to your kind. When there is injustice meted to your out-group, you keep quiet and say "OooOooh yes, boys need to be toughened up in NS. Good for them!" What is it, if not sexism? Is it consistent that you condone one type of sexism and denounce another when it is against your interests?

Since the beginning of time, men were soldiers. Since the beginning of time, women were mothers. If feminists wish to challenge gender roles, best come up with an equitable policy solution rather than to inflict injustice upon another. Dancing around my statements with a large vocabulary isn't going to solve things.

 

[red amoeba]

from my observation, females are better in bringing up children..serious...i am not sexist or what...its just who is better for the job.

of cse men can do it...but it don't come easy...i am for men to help out eg: household chores while the wife attend to the child after work...

 

[Annoyed]

No, I do not think a sole male breadwinner would need those few weeks of leave to take care of kids - the same way I do not think a low-income family would benefit from having a permanent stay-home mom when she can ill-afford to do so. Read my earlier posts - I never suggested implementing an increase in paternity leave at the exclusion of all other policies. I merely said this is something we can and should look into, to provide an option to those families that might actually require them. FYI, I HAVE a sizeable number of male colleagues whose wives earn more than they do, and who spend considerable time tending to their kids. In fact, they often complain about the lack of friendly "father" policies, which to them is a disadvantage - their wives spend so little time within the household, anyway. That is why I say it is sexist to assume that the husband earns more, or that the main breadwinner is always male; there are other permutations out there.

Also, I would appreciate if you don't presume to know me or "my type". I don't know what kind of experiences you have had with victimized AWARE members in the past; I have no association with them, and this is the first time I've had to argue a viewpoint from a supposedly "feminist" perspective. As for that bit on NS - believe it or not, I am all for reviewing the idea of mandatory conscription. I'm not convinced that the training, as it stands now, leads to any positive outcomes in terms of sufficiently prepping citizen-soldiers for war, and I see no point in wasting the time and lives of so many males that can be put to better use. I have personally witnessed, and am appalled by, the bullying that takes place in military units, the unfettered powers of superiors over their minions, and the seeming lack of recourse that is afforded to said minions. I appreciate the need for regimentation and discipline in a military outfit, but I think excessive behavior of this kind demeans all - whether male or female. So, no, I don't believe that "boys should be toughened up", especially not when I'm also aware that the level of toughening is inversely proportional to the clout of their papas and mamas.

My final word on this: equality doesn't have to mean "inflicting injustices on one another". I don't presume I have what it takes to come up with earth-shattering policy solutions that will get rid of gender inequality once and for all. But I'm also not sure what it is I have suggested that implies raising the happiness levels of women at the expense of men - unless, of course, we work on the assumption that not a single man out there is actually keen on taking on more child-rearing responsibilities and will, as a reflex, respond to the suggestion in a wholly negative way.

Thanks.

AHA! That's precisely the kind of defensive attitude one expects from feminists who feel victimized. Longer paternity leave will not solve the issue of workplace discrimination. In fact, it passes the buck to men who may in fact be the sole breadwinner in the family. Do you think a sole breadwinner needs those few weeks of leave to take care of kids while job competition is rife? Would that not disadvantage married couples who want children in the workplace?

Ah yes... sexism. It is sexism when females are expected to give birth (!) and take care of children. Then, isn't it sexism that men in this country are required to serve in the military, while women are not? Women I know who are like you will always argue that society is unfair, unjust and mean to your kind. When there is injustice meted to your out-group, you keep quiet and say "OooOooh yes, boys need to be toughened up in NS. Good for them!" What is it, if not sexism? Is it consistent that you condone one type of sexism and denounce another when it is against your interests?

Since the beginning of time, men were soldiers. Since the beginning of time, women were mothers. If feminists wish to challenge gender roles, best come up with an equitable policy solution rather than to inflict injustice upon another. Dancing around my statements with a large vocabulary isn't going to solve things.

 

[red amoeba]

there can never be equality...no matter how you sugar coat it...thats the reason why women have the ability to bear children & men do not.

and no, i am not a sexist...just realist that man and woman are different, each have their gender specific roles.

 

[Annoyed]

I'm not sugar-coating anything, and I never implied it is "sexist" to suggest that only women can bear children. That's a biological truth. Gender-specific roles, however, are constructed norms and rely as much on societal attitudes as biological truths. For instance, men are deemed more suitable for physically-demanding jobs because they have greater physical strength - no one is disputing that. But with technological advances, how much does physical strength come into play, unless you're talking about manual labor? Take the job of a rickshaw puller - probably inconceivable for a woman; insufficient strength to run at fast speeds while pulling on that darn thing with customers onboard. How about bus drivers, though? Remember those days when it was actually rare to see women bus drivers? I think that's got to more to do with attitudes - "women just aren't supposed to be drivers" - than any biological truth [I'm discounting the possibility of the suckiness of female drivers as biological truth here ]. These days, there are a lot more women bus drivers out on the streets, and they're less of an eyebrow-raiser than they would have been, say, 10 years ago.

there can never be equality...no matter how you sugar coat it...thats the reason why women have the ability to bear children & men do not.

and no, i am not a sexist...just realist that man and woman are different, each have their gender specific roles.

 

[kingrant]

I think it is counterproductive to have arguments on the basis of which is man's role and which is the woman's. There are problems and obstacles that the couple -both the man and woman- have to face and overcome, not just the woman. So shoving the blame onto women only reveals how shallow and superficial we can be. And the fact that men dominates women in govt, business and general society only makes the women more suspicious and revulsed of males-only-generated solutions.

Annoyed made some good observations in the course of this exchange and I thought they were nuggets. She probably hit the nail on the head and spoke for most parents going thru the dilemma (trilemma?). She has mentioned how the level of education relates to marriage age ( and therefore bearing age as a corollary.) Then there is the stress to keep up with the Jones's, and the madness starts from playschool all the way non-stop to JC and even Uni. Recent news that people like Jim Rogers and Zoe Tay are in on the act only show how competitve the environment has changed. We are not machines and having gone thru with the first kid, most parents would want a break to recover, which can only mean having the next one or two more even later on in life. If the couple wanted to have some time to themsleves, then there really isnt a lot of time before the bio clock sounds alarm bells. So I think it is more fruitful (sic) that we should talk about how to ameliorate the challenges in bringing up a family let alone a litter. Old man's continual rant on about how educated women should put aside their careers just to stay home and spawn is only driving people esp the ladies up the wall. It only shows that he and his talented cabinet still havent got on the same page. He is one big male chauvinist pig who probably is one big root of the problem, besides only knowing how to throw money at a problem.

"As for why people do not want to have more (than two) kids, I can't purport to speak for everybody. My personal observation is that it boils down primarily to three areas - costs, expectations and level of education - all of which are inter-related. Most of us are probably aware that there is a direct correlation between one's level of education and marriage age. [That extends to the number of spawn in a marriage as well - the later you marry, the less time your biological clock has to tick and the less kids you tend to have.] I would also venture to say that the higher your level of education, the higher your expectation - for both yourself and your children. That is, it isn't enough for your kids to enter "average" schools, mix with "average" kids, hopefully make it to a local university, and then get government jobs after they graduate. No, you want your kids to be the "best" and to be so, they must have the "best" - ballet/piano/art/abacus/mental calculation/foreign language lessons from the age of three. When they enter primary school, you'll start getting tuition teachers to supplement what they're taught in class, and more tuition teachers to supplement what they're taught in tuition classes. Continue with this all the way to secondary school and JC; let's also not forget about saving enough for "luxury items" like their overseas university education (just in case they don't qualify for scholarships). All of this costs money - does it not? - and the more children you have, the more you'll need to spend.

I've had colleagues tell me that they intend to stop at one because "I'd rather my only daughter have a 48-color crayon set than two kids, who each can only have 24-color crayon sets". And others who start sending their children for French - albeit kiddy - lessons when they're only two, in the hope that they'll grow up to be trilingual, instead of just bilingual (never mind that our system of bilingual education has flunked completely; that's another topic for another time). I'm not standing by the efficacy of these methods, but I do know a large number of people with such mentalities. And as society gets more competitive with upward mobility becoming increasingly important, I don't know if there's any turning back. For those I'm acquainted with, no number of incentives is going to make them spawn at the desirable level of three or more - simply because these are only a temporary, and not long-term, solution for the investment they plan to make in their kids. So, Kingrant, you're absolutely right to say that having cheaper maids and/or childcare services or longer paternity leave doesn't get to the root of the problem. Better to have less children to avoid spreading their time, money and effort too thin. "